You are not logged in.
Steel refinement from iron is one process, here's the reaction:
Fe2O3 + 3CO ---> 2 FE + 3 CO2
Well, I know Mars has a thin ozone layer, I wasn't talking about into the breathing air, I meant into the atmosphere as a whole, to create a thicker ozone layer.
I've been reading it...but right now, everything is theoretical. For all we know, by then we could have microns-thick super-teflon.
But I get your point-we have to be realistic.
Is it possible to pump ozone into the air to protect against sunlight?
By "hammered" I meant we know how to do it. Look here on Earth, thousands of years ago, they had pretty much "hammered" out means of forging. Once you have a basic understanding, it's not hard to expand on.
If all of your factories don't produce pollution, you're not going to get much done. There are various gases produced in industrial reactions that are much better released as pollution than recycled (hot CO2, greenhouse gases, etc.)
And Mars has plenty of water. They don't have to "produce" any. Water is pretty good at recycling itself-photosynthesis releases water on its own.
There is always waste generated by industrial processes, and it may actually be beneficial to vent it (to create a thicker atmosphere, as I've seen in some plans).
What I meant was more for the settlement phase, perhaps a central garden in each "neighborhood" and park areas, etc. For people to relax and feel at home-we need a familiarity to attract people to Mars, make them feel its not dead.
I don't think we'll use our first iron ore for statues. Forging techniques will be hammered out in our industrial applications before settlement even begins.
I would agree with dickbill: if there was enough space and beautification, people would be fine living in huge pressurized domes. Brick buildings could be built inside, to make it more like "home."
Domes could be connected with tunnels, and networks of domes could form cities. Domes could even be specialized: agriculture, shops, homes, industry, etc. Homes and shops (malls, etc.) might be in the same or adjacent domes, while industry could be in domes far away. Maybe maglev trains could transport people between cities, and to (relatively) far away domes. This would let people in the residential area work far away in the industry dome, while getting there quickly.
Now, I have a question. Could vents for smoke, fumes, etc. be built in? Any design possibilities that let wastes be sent out of the dome?
I think he's talking about the conspiracy theory about a face being on Mars proving the existence of alien intelligent life there.
Don't worry, it's a joke. The "images" of the "face" are really doctored up versions of real images.
Don't blame us for bombing the schools, blame Saddam for using them as fortresses and trying to manipulate civilian buildings. If he fires and we don't retaliate, we're screwed, if we do, we're blamed for "massacring civilians." Let's blame the real guilty party here.
Like I said in another thread, the demand, albeit small, created by the ISS is the only thing that is really keeping the private area going, in hopes of satisfying that demand. No ISS=no hopes for your X Prize candidates for any real revenues.
The vehicles created to serve the ISS might/will be cheaper than any government vehicles, which would fuel demand for private orbital development.
NERVA->Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Applications
NTR-> Nuclear Thermal Rocket/Reactor (depending on who you ask)
SSTO-> Single Stage To Orbit
GCNR-> Gas Core Nuclear Rocket/Reactor
Better?
A single GCNR engine would prove a very effective engine for an Earth based SSTO and spaceplane. Low fuel, fast travel, clean. Launch and land on an airstrip for convenient replacement of current airplane commerce.
Pulse has not been proven. I have not seen any reports of a pulse rocket built. NERVA was built and tested.
And 250,000 lbs. of thrust on a 1960s engine doesn't suck. Using modern technology and designs, we could vastly improve that. Orion hasn't even had a test in a lab with nuclear explosives on a pusher plate. There is no guarantee we could "build it tomorrow." And there is that little issue of international treaties, which don't apply to NTRs.
Like I said before, any type of NTR launch is more desirable from the ground. GCNRs could be designed to be heavy lift vehicles, or even SSTOs for planetary or orbital travel. They could be clean, manuverable, efficient, and powerful.
Plus, they give you a reactor for your ship, which Orion doesn't, and they allow much more design flexibility. You don't have a huge plate that serves as basic dead weight.
If we have a pulse every second, let's calculate how many pulses you need to get to Mars and back. Are you going to store that many nuclear devices on board?
It would only take a few dozen kg of uranium/plutonium, at most, for a NERVA based Mars mission. Less if we used liquid core NTRs, and even less if we used GCNRs.
I understand what you mean about heavy lift, Earth->orbit/space, and I once thought the same way. But it just isn't worth the political hassle, and there are more attractive and flexbile alternatives.
Orion...hammered out? No, it was killed decades ago. We may have numbers, but NTRs have actually been built, which means Orion has a backseat in terms of experience.
We are further along towards building a GCNR--we know we can build NTRs, Orion is purely theoretical.
Lastly, I have to admit a certain amount of confusion as to the purpose of terraforming in the first place. There is no hope of moving a significant portion of people from Earth to Mars, or from Earth to Venus - not now, and not ever, unless we acquire wormhole technology or master the workings of quantum tunneling or teleportation or the like - and without that hope, the reason for doing it evaporates. Whats the point? We'd just be creating another potential population problem, say, a few thousand years down the line. Not to mention an immense expense.
New frontiers, vistas, worlds, opportunities, etc.
What if, by the time that Mars atmosphere loss begins to get severe, a massive recession hits Earth, and Mars cannot afford to continue to exist? Then all the previous work would be lost. I know its something of a whining example, but the fact remains that the probability of Mars being abandoned before the terraforming is even completed is likely very high - economic concerns might encroach, or even territorial ones. What if interstellar travel is developed? As I've said before, Mars would quickly be bypassed in favour of easier targets for planetary engineering. Cheaper targets, I would hazard a guess to say, too.
Come on. First of all, atmospheres don't suddenly disappear. i doubt we would let it get to that point, either.
And if we develop interstellar travel, does that mean we will empty the solar system? No. People will continue to live on Mars because they want to, or are tied to their homes. Did all Europeans leave England when America was discovered?
And how would it be cheaper to get to Alpha Centauri than to Mars? Let's forget time for a minute here, let's talk about propellant, mass, distance, and so on!
And it wasn't circular logic. I was merely pointing out the fact that at this point, and at any conceivable point in the future, we will not understand sufficient facts to enact planetary engineering on a large scale as,
It absolutely qualifies as circular logic. You're saying we shouldn't do it if we don't know how. How are we going to get this data without trying? You're proposing a tautology, that leaves out any room for experimentation.
We are a part of the universe. But we don't own it by divine right, and I think acting out fantasies such as changing an entire planet to our will is just the extension of the fantasy that the entire universe exists only for us.
Never plant a garden! You are carving out the world to your fantasies!
But wait, we are infusing life into a planet, not taking it away! This is a strawman argument. It is not about the universe existing only for us, it is about advancing our species, it is about exploring, discovering, experiencing! Come now, you don't believe that we must be limited to the our cradle of birth, do you?
Why use chemical? As I've said a few times, a GCNR would be a much better way to have a single stage, clean, efficient booster, with many functions, no minimum mass, and huge payloads. You don't need 25% of a 4,000 tonne craft devoted to a pusher plate.
They also didn't have the problem of displaying every failure to the public, and much more lax scrutiny and regulation. Their practices would not have been allowed here.
I think the issue is we don't know the quantity of nitrates that exist. I've heard speculations of nitrate beds, and speculations of a complete lack of nitrogen.
That's right, I meant <1% CO2, typo.
Where would you get the resources to build a world? What a waste!
We should let Mars simply sit there, because it is there?
Scientifically, I belive that it is bad science to carry out a practice before understanding at least some sizeable part of your data about said practice; which is something we simply cannot claim in the area of planetary engineering.
Circular logic. "We don't have the data now, so we can't do it, which means we won't have the data later...etc."
Do we want to repeat the error of this planet (which is our home, and which we therefore actually treated with more respect than I predict we will Mars, even at our 'worst hours'), on another planet, and force it to our will... only to set a precedent to all the future generations that /it is okay/ to /force your will/ upon /that which does not belong to you/?
Am I not allowed to weed a garden? Or plant a new garden of beauty? What good would it do to anybody to let Mars lie, dead, when we could benefit as a species. We could benefit the entire biosphere. Animals and complex organisms would undoubtedely inhabit a fully terraformed Mars. We could use these techniques to aid us with Venus, and build a triad of living worlds.
The fact that it sacrifices long term planning for short term growth makes it a perfect precursor for anarchism, since it will eventually fall because it'll be too shortsighted to see its own demise.
Stop drawing quotes out of the Communist Manifesto. As I have said before quite clearly, neither Marx nor Smith foresaw government and societal intervention, which makes this "short term" bs no longer valid.
The real world form of capitalism is sufficiently regulated to facilitate long term stability, and short term growth. 200+ years of application have proven this quite well. The system is only getting stronger.
Proudhon argues the ?property is robbery? argument quite well.
According to you he does, but according to real economists, he's an obscure philosopher, with liberal ideas that can't be applied.
I went over, in detail, how resources cannot be maintained at an equal distribution. Human nature itself creates this inequality.
But like I said in the other thread, it's a dead issue, which I'm not going to waste my time on any more.
No, they own the right to that particular design. You see, AT&T, Ericcson, Nokia-they all own the right to shine light through a case. They didn't patent the idea, only the application.
So soph, have you read the Anarchist FAQ, or not? I'm just curious, because you seem to be so ?right? about everything these days, I'd just like to see your rebuttals to their convincing arguments.
I read them a while ago. Nothing that had any real value in economics. Noble ideals, but no capacity in reality.
Sorry, Josh, the world seems to agree with me.
I'm done discussing this topic. It's really a dead issue, as the world has made its decision and isnt about to change its mind anytime soon. It's fairly clear which systems will find their way into space, and which will fade into the pages of history books.
Oh, really? Actually, it seems that your logic is not the logic of reality. Or economics. So would you care to elaborate on this?
If those who purport to be capitalists can't grasp logic, why is capitalism the thriving and dominant system of the globe, while large scale socialist systems have failed, and no anarchist systems have had any iota of success in the 200 years since Proudhon lived?
And I would say taking away property is robbery as well. But you have to be a capitalist, or any number of other systems, to see it that way.
If that had any basis in economics or human behavior, it might be valid.
People do control the economy, as I have shown before. It is hardly tyrannical. If a company skews their services (price, employment conditions, etc.), they will not succeed over a more attractive competitor. Anybody in today's economy can become an entrepreneur. It's just a matter of doing your research.
A better idea, I think, is to just get rid of the idea of a company altogether and form some other kind of arrangement, where people do not compete, but rather collaborate for a goal which all think is valuable in itself.
Competition drives innovation. A system without competition will stagnate. History proves this point. Competition is a necessity, and it's why humans have become the dominant species on the planet.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "self interest", but if I am understanding you correctly in percieving this as gaining control of various materials, then I'd say that's very much false.
Another fallacy. People work to acquire money, which allows them more luxuries. People who are paid more for the same job (to a point) work more efficiently. Why? Because they have more motivation.
As for redistribution of wealth, I think what we really need to understand is that wealth is not typically just some money floating around in a bank.
There's a reason for the unequal distribution of wealth. It's not an evil system, it's human ingenuity, and other traits, and their varying levels. Not some "tyrannical arrangement."
So why not use CFCs? We know we can produce them.
One thing that baffles me - why did we need a shuttle mission dedicated to "pure science" if we have the space station? So either that was a purely-wasted trip which resulted in 7 dead astronauts, or indeed that science could not be done on the useless ISS.
The ISS isn't fully complete.
Hehehe - you proved my point.
We need the shuttle to get to the space station and we need the station so the shuttle has somewhere to go. That's a circular dependency of uselessness.
Circular dependency of uselessness? And if the OSP is a cheaper, say 1/4 the price ferry for 4 people? It would allow cheaper access to space. Is this a bad thing? No, it's obviously serving a useful purpose.
Why don't you read the rest of my post. This "circular dependency of uselessness" is the only demand in space there is right now--it's the only thing keeping manned space travel going.